Prisons

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, claimed that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to properly investigate his claim for property that went missing when he was removed from his cell. He said that staff left the cell door open and other prisoners had taken his property. The SPS told us that Mr C's cell door was locked after he was removed from it. They also said that they had cleared the cell and listed the items that were removed from it. The items that belonged to Mr C were held in the reception area for him, and the other items were confiscated.

The items Mr C had claimed compensation for had been in his use before he was removed from the cell. There was no evidence that staff left the door open or that the SPS were responsible for the items that went missing. However, we found that staff delayed in investigating Mr C's claim, and that two of the items they confiscated did in fact belong to Mr C. We brought this to the SPS's attention and they said that they would compensate him for these, as they had been destroyed. In view of this and the delay in investigating the claim, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• issue a written apology to Mr C for the failings identified; and
• take steps to ensure that other prisoners do not face similar delays when they make claims for missing property.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was identified as needing to participate in programmes before he could be considered for access to less secure prison conditions. He complained to us because he felt the prison had failed to adequately prepare him for progression because the date on which he became eligible for consideration for this had passed by over a year.

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) risk management and progression guidance confirms that prisoners serving a longer sentence, such as Mr C, may be eligible for consideration for transfer to open conditions from up to two years before their parole qualifying date, providing they meet the relevant criteria. In Mr C's case, that meant he might have been eligible for consideration to progress to less secure conditions after serving eight months of his sentence. However, the qualifying criteria confirm that a prisoner should have no outstanding programmes to complete and their progression needs to be approved by the risk management team. SPS guidance on how prisoners should be allocated programme spaces confirms that long-term prisoners should be allocated a space according to their parole qualifying date.

The SPS explained that Mr C had been identified as needing to complete two programmes, and was placed on the relevant waiting lists according to his parole qualifying date, in line with the normal process. They confirmed that Mr C had now completed both programmes, and that his final report was being prepared. There were, however, a number of factors impacting upon the prison's ability to complete reports, including staff shortages. After the report was available, the programmes case management board would consider Mr C's case and decide whether he had any further programme needs before the risk management team considered his progression application.

The evidence available confirmed that the SPS were preparing Mr C for progression to less secure conditions in line with their normal process. Although this was not happening as quickly as Mr C hoped, because they were correctly following their process we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained to the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) about a decision they had taken about a piece of personal property, and then complained to us about their handling of his complaint.

Our investigation revealed shortcomings in the complaints handling. For example, we found that there had not been an appropriate investigation at an early stage in the process. We also found that the investigation at a later stage was inappropriate. That is the stage where the complaint is considered at a hearing of the prison's internal complaints committee (ICC). At that stage, a prisoner may request that specific witnesses are called for the hearing. The prison rules say that an ICC chair can refuse a particular witness if they have discussed this with the prisoner, and are reasonably satisfied that the evidence the witness would be likely to give would be of no relevance or value in considering the complaint. In that case, the chair must tell the prisoner before the hearing. There is, however, no requirement on them to write this down, either to confirm that a discussion took place or to record what was said at it.

We concluded that, in this case, there had not been a pre-ICC hearing and that the ICC chair had not, therefore, complied with the prison rules when refusing Mr C's choice of witness. We made several recommendations, including one related to our concern that a recurring theme in complaints to us about the SPS has been the difficulty in determining complaints where there is a lack of evidence about pre-ICC discussions.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for the shortcomings identified in our investigation;
• remind residential front line managers of their duties under prison rule 122(4);
• ensure that an ICC reconsider the complaint at the part five stage of the prisoner complaint form and that the governor then considers whether to endorse or reject the ICC's further decision; and
• tell the Ombudsman what action they will take to address the issue of lack of evidence in complaints that an ICC chair has not complied with prison rule 123(7).

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, bought a watch through the prison's approved purchase scheme. Before issuing the watch to him, the prison removed the protective case and told Mr C he was not allowed to have it in use. Mr C complained that the decision was unfair.

The prison explained that this type of packaging had been identified as something in which prisoners might conceal illicit items. Because of that, they had decided not to allow prisoners to have such items in use. We found that the prison rules confirm that governors are entitled to refuse to allow a prisoner to have any items in use which might be damaging to the security or good order of the prison. We were satisfied the prison were entitled to take the decision to no longer issue such packaging in these circumstances, and we did not uphold that part of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained to us that the prison failed to complete his complaint form properly. He said the governor had not indicated whether he accepted the decision of the internal complaints committee (ICC) on Mr C's complaint. Mr C submitted an additional complaint directly to the governor about that, but was advised to discuss it with his hall manager. Our investigation found that the prison rules confirm that the governor must tell a prisoner whether they accept the ICC's decision. They can do so by simply ticking a box on the complaint form. In Mr C's case, that did not happen, and the prison acknowledged that this had been an oversight. We upheld this part of the complaint because the prison failed to complete the form properly. In addition, when Mr C made his additional complaint the prison missed that opportunity to resolve the matter and he had to bring it to us.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to complete his complaint form properly; and
• remind the governor, or those acting on his behalf, of the requirement to indicate at part 6 of the complaint form whether the ICC's decision is endorsed or rejected.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was being unfairly denied the opportunity to access an offending behaviour programme, for which he had been identified as suitable, within a reasonable time. Mr C was concerned that the criteria used by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) to determine his place on the waiting list meant other prisoners were being given priority over him.

The SPS have a policy providing guidance to prisons on how to prioritise the allocation of prisoner spaces onto offending behaviour programmes. It confirms that spaces are allocated to prisoners according to their critical dates within their sentence. For example, Mr C is serving a life sentence and his critical date is the point at which the punishment part of his sentence ends. The policy also confirms that no prisoner type is prioritised over another. Having considered the evidence available, we were satisfied that the SPS were managing Mr C's access to the programme appropriately, in line with their normal procedure, and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was alleged to have been involved in assaulting another prisoner. The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) decided to remove Mr C from association with other prisoners while they investigated this and considered how to manage Mr C in future. Mr C complained about being removed from association, saying there was no evidence he had assaulted the prisoner and that his removal was unreasonably long.

It is not for us to decide whether prisoners should be removed from association. That is for the SPS and, where the removal is for more than 72 hours, Scottish Ministers. Our role in the complaint was to consider the way in which the decision was made (such as whether the SPS followed relevant procedures in making it), rather than the merits of the decision itself. We did not uphold this complaint as our investigation established that the SPS had followed procedures appropriately. For example, they obtained authorisation from Scottish Ministers, the correct paperwork was completed and Mr C was appropriately informed.

Mr C also complained that the SPS' internal complaints committee (ICC) did not let him call the witnesses of his choice to the hearing of his complaint about this. Such hearings are part of the SPS' complaints procedure, and a prisoner may ask for witnesses to be called to support their case. It is for the ICC chairperson to decide whether those witnesses can be called. If the chairperson decides to refuse the request, he or she must have discussed the matter with the prisoner before the hearing. Our investigation found that in Mr C's case, the ICC chairperson had acted appropriately and in line with procedures in deciding not to call Mr C's choice of witnesses.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison inappropriately acted outwith the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) risk management and progression guidance by recommending that he should be assessed by a psychologist. Mr C told us that the guidance says that it was only the prison's risk management team (RMT) who could make that decision and he said he had not been referred to the RMT for some time. Our investigation found that the guidance confirmed that all referrals for a psychological risk assessment must be actioned by the RMT only. We obtained a copy of Mr C's referral form, and this confirmed that the RMT discussed and agreed the recommendation that Mr C should undergo an assessment.

Mr C also said that, after he complained, the prison's internal complaints committee (ICC) recommended that he meet with someone from the psychology department to discuss the assessment, but the prison failed to action that recommendation. The prison told us, however, that after Mr C complained, the consultant psychiatrist who was going to carry out the assessment wrote to him to explain things a little further. After that, Mr C had confirmed he was happy to be assessed.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was involved in an altercation with another prisoner. Mr C said he was provoked into defending himself, and that he did so in line with guidance he was given on the prison’s violence prevention programme (VPP). Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) did not investigate the incident appropriately, and that the prison’s internal complaints committee (ICC) failed to consider relevant evidence and to follow procedures in reaching their decision.

The SPS explained that Mr C’s view on what he was taught at the VPP was not correct. The Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011 state that a prisoner is guilty of a breach of discipline if they fight with any person. The prison had evidence from a member of staff that Mr C was fighting, and Mr C did not present any mitigating evidence at the time he was charged. We found no evidence that the SPS failed to investigate the incident appropriately. We also looked at the records for the ICC and found that they considered relevant evidence, and followed the correct procedures.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the built-in DVD player on his in-cell TV set did not work. He did not feel it was fair to pay the full TV service charge when his set was defective. However, the prison confirmed that Mr C was paying for access to TV channels, which he still had, and not the DVD facility. They explained to us that, due to budgetary restrictions, they were not always able to provide new sets and their focus was on ensuring that every cell had access to TV channels. We considered this reasonable and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Mr C also complained about the way in which the prison handled his complaint. He said that the manager who first considered his complaint was also a member of the prison's internal complaints committee (ICC) who considered his complaint at the next stage, and that his complaint form was not signed by the three committee members. In responding to this, the prison had pointed out that the manager gave what the prison considered to be a standard reply for that type of complaint. They said he had not offered an opinion on it that could later affect the outcome of the hearing. They acknowledged that the ICC members had omitted to sign the complaint form and an administrator had signed it on their behalf.

The prison rules do not advise against ICC members being involved at an earlier stage of the complaint. However, we pointed out that it is good practice for staff involved in complaints to be impartial, independent and accountable. While we were satisfied that the outcome of this complaint was not negatively influenced by the manager’s presence on the ICC, we took the view that a potential conflict of interest could have arisen, and that his appointment to the ICC would have best been avoided. We also noted that the ICC members should have signed the complaint form, and in the circumstances, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• take steps to ensure that members of the ICC have not previously been involved in the handling of the complaint being considered; and
• remind staff that, when they participate in an ICC hearing, they appropriately sign part 5 of the PCF1 form.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison did not follow procedures when they downgraded him from less secure conditions to more secure. He also complained about the prison’s handling of his complaint.

Prisons are entitled to decide to downgrade a prisoner when evidence is available to suggest that the prisoner may be unsuitable for less secure conditions. We found that the prison followed the proper process and considered all relevant information before deciding to return Mr C to more secure conditions. We were also satisfied that their handling of Mr C’s complaint was reasonable in the circumstances.